Hillary Clinton and the Button
Today, I received an e-mail from MoveOn.org asking me to donate five dollars in order to fund a new commercial attacking Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. The commercial would focus on the prospect of Trump getting his hands on America's nuclear weapons. As the e-mail stated:
Donald Trump's climbing in the polls.1 It's time to go nuclear. (In a way.)
MoveOn made an important discovery in the course of our intensive research this summer: A key bloc of swing voters appears to be most strongly persuaded to vote against Trump when confronted with the threat of his finger on the nuclear button.2
As part of this research effort, our Video Lab made an ad, ran the video online to show it to voters in swing states, and teamed up with researchers at the Analyst Institute to study its effectiveness—and the results blew us away.
In our controlled study, men over the age of 30 who watched our video about Trump's finger on the nuclear button were seven percentage points more likely to support Clinton over Trump, compared to those who didn't watch the ad.
Given his at times erratic behavior, concerns over Trump getting the bomb are understandable. However, the people at Move On failed to consider the issue of their own candidate getting the bomb, which is arguably concerning in its own right.
My Gut Reaction: Somehow, I don't think someone who threatens to annihilate Iran is a safe option for the presidency, either.
More below the fold...
Hillary Clinton's own history of militaristic policy positions, along with jingoistic statements such as the one references above, make her an at best dubious candidate for control of our nation's nuclear weapons. She has shown poor judgment by voting in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq as well as her advocacy of intervention in Libya while Secretary of State. Even more disturbingly, she has proposed further involvement in the Middle East, including intervention in the Syrian Civil War. Her calls for establishing a no-fly zone over Syria are particularly dangerous, given the presence of Russian military forces in the region. As Adam Johnson described in an opinion piece for Al Jazeera, conflict of some sort with the world's other major nuclear power would be inevitable:
There’s little reason to believe Russia would sell out their only ally in the Middle East, and they’re certainly not going to assist the U.S. in bombing this ally’s air defense and warplanes. The reason Clinton described a fantasy no-fly zone where Russia joins the U.S. is because a real one could potentially require the U.S. to shoot down Russian jets, and starting World War III doesn’t square with the wishes of most Democrats, let alone most Americans.
In a scenario like the one Hillary Clinton calls for, the potential for the situation to escalate into a disaster would be very real. All it would take would be one American, or Russian, or Syrian pilot exceeding his or her rules of engagement to trigger a confrontation and World War III. As despicable as Trump is, nothing he has called for, to my knowledge, is anywhere near as dangerous as Clinton's proposed policy.
This, in my view, is the ultimate deal breaker that prevents me from voting for Clinton. All the other issues Clinton supporters cite as reason to hold one's nose: immigration, the Supreme Court, etc., become moot in the face of a nuclear war. No one would care anymore, because we'd all be dead.
Comments
"Our controlled study"
Nice to know that Move On donations are paying for something as worthy and noble as mind control experiments to test the efficacy of various forms of nuclear fear mongering.
Almost brings a tear to your eye.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Lucid perspective--
Rodhead Clinton --- my doubts are doubled that she'll acquire the presidency due to snowballing health problems and everything else that threatens to scuttle her bid.
Thank you the important reminder to ditch Move-On from my subscription list.
"I can't understand why people are frightened of new ideas. I'm frightened of the old ones."
John Cage
EEEWWW!
Please!! That video clip from Clockwork Orange is exactly the sort of thing that needs a warning.
Please add one, or delete the video and just put in the link with a warning.
You're giving me nightmares.
Vicariously HR'd.
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don't know we don't know.
You think THAT's scary...
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Oh hell no!
The movie Clockwork Orange is a prime example of american exceptionalism.
We've done that.
Regardless of the path in life I chose, I realize it's always forward, never straight.
She would be a clear and present danger to world peace
Russia insists on the defense of their country. If you know anything about Russia and President Putin you understand this. They insist that other countries understand and respect their perspective on issues. And that's about it. Clinton is an believer that the US is "the indispensable nation". Other countries' perspectives are not to be taken into account because only the US perspective is real. At minimum she will cause war between proxies and at maximum, direct war with Russia. Somehow she doesn't seem believe that the US would cease to exist as a nation on this planet if Russia were to unleash her nuclear weapons. The truth is that Russia does not desire confrontation with the West, but cooperation and respect. I believe that Hillary is not capable of this. She lacks wisdom and vision and she will just act as a enabler for the worst war hawks in America. Right now, keeping her out of the White House is the most important task. It is ironic that Move On has chosen this one issue to try and bash Trump. As far as I can see, he shares none of her dangerous war mongering characteristics. Having tried to portray Trump as a flake, Move On is trying to transfer that onto nuclear war. Sorry, but that dog just don't hunt. There is a rich sea of issues to go after Trump v Clinton, but this is not one of them.
Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.
Indispensable Nation?
You mean like:
the Delian League?
Rome?
Byzantium?
The Carolingian Empire?
The Holy See?
Spain?
The Republic of France?
Great Britain?
I am so tired of this nonsense that the US is the "indispensable nation." I wish Clinton and her neocon friends would take a serious look at history and rethink their hubris.
Obama and NATO are already pushing for a war with
Russia. They have been building up troops in over 20 countries that surrounds Russia and Obama has put more missle defense systems in more countries around Russia.
And the US has created a mini nuke that they say won't do as much damage.
Why are they doing this? They say it's because of Russia's aggression.
The only country I know that Russia is involved in is Syria and Assad invited them. The other countries are there against the Nuremberg law, but that doesn't seem to apply to the United States for some reason.
They accuse Putin of invading Crimea when it had every right to defend its base there.
And speaking of aggression, which country just flew a navy spy plane 10 miles off of Russia's borders? The exceptional one!
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
Everyone ignores the fact Crimea is part of Russia
The media tend to ignore the fact Crimea was historically part of Russia, transferred to Ukraine during the Soviet Union. But Putin wasn't prudent in how he took it back.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
Putin didn't "take it back."
It separated from Ukraine and rejoined Russia. Putin, that is, the Russians, took it back in the sense of granting Russian citizenship to the Crimeans and assuming responsibility for their their well-being. They certainly weren't going to let NATO put a base there. The people who live in Crimea, like those in Eastern Ukraine, are Russians and don't want to be part of anti-Russian Western Ukraine. The Crimean parliament had already voted to declare independence from Ukraine in 1992 and the issue has come up repeatedly since Ukraine gained independence.
We wanted decent healthcare, a living wage and free college.
The Democrats gave us Biden and war instead.
Be afraid, be very afraid
Be afraid, be very afraid of Donald Trump. All Clintons & their sycophants have to say " be afraid of Donald Trump." When asked a question, by the few journalists they deign to speak with, it is always the same. BTW - in Washington DC it's known as " RESPOND BUT DON'T ANSWER" - first thing ya' learn if you're going to speak to a journalist pundit, anybody. So, the Clinton version of deny, deny, lie, lie, it's old news, we've covered that, is always followed by... Be Afraid of Trump.
Clinton has no personal accomplishments, long resume, padded, lies, no personal accomplishments!
Astonishing Clintons still think in 2016, they can run a 1992 campaign. As if there's no internet, no VIDEOS of her collapsing, being hauled into a van, no information about Zeiss blue lens anti-seizure eye glasses ( NOT SUNGLASSES, not available in USA) she wore ALL DAY IN PUBLIC on 9/11/16. No videos of her being unable to stand still ( visit to Joe Biden's old house in Scranton) without HOLDING ON to something - railing, kitchen table. Can not move from stationary position ( leaning against a cement pole) to mobility, without collapsing - definitely a MOBILITY problem.
While there are many comments online about PD, MS, Lupus, etc. - I'm sticking with Alligator Ed's opinion, well educated opinion, of Right Frontal Lobe Epilepsy. Please Yahoo or what ever search engine you prefer just Not GOOGLE: Zeiss blue lens anti-seizure lenses.
Clintons in back in the White House MUCH more dangerous than Donald Trump in the White House.
A.B.C. = Anybody But Clintons
Trump as zero experience, be
Trump as zero experience, be like having your Barber clean your chimney. we will spend 4 years worried if Trump really knows what the fuck he is doing and if anything he had done was done right causing everything to burn down.
Meanwhile
All of Hillary's experience points towards her warmongering tendencies and poor judgment.
I would not vote for Trump, but Clinton strikes me as just as dangerous, if not more in her own way.
"You argue that you don't want to throw away your vote. That's right. Don't vote for freedom - you might not get it. Vote for slavery - you have a cinch on that." Eugene Debs
I absolutely believe Hillary is more dangerous...
...than Trump on this issue. No, he is not the 'safe' choice, a peace-loving hippie or anything like that, but he at least is willing/able to view Putin as someone who is not a great threat to America.
Hillary, on the other hand, is driven by her identification with the neo-con FP outlook and her knee-jerk sense of political expediency into consistently embracing the most reckless & most aggressive of military options.
Always remember this: when it comes to Clinton's foreign policy decision-making tendencies, Hillary can be counted on to always act on her greatest political fears. What she fears more than anything else, politically, is her Republican opponents going out of their way to depict her as "weak on America's enemies." It is a foundational cornerstone of The Third Way's political philosophy.
It is for this reason that she will always deprive them of any such opportunities by always getting out in front of her critics and demonstrating that no one is more hawkish than she is when it comes to using America's military assets to dominate any of the 'trouble spots' around the world.
It is actually not possible to imagine a Republican war monger, past or present, who is more eager to throw the dice than Hillary Clinton.
The fact that she is a woman means nothing. In fact, it actually makes her more likely to embrace military adventurism in order to win the approval of her war hawk buds in the Pentagon. That is what scares me more than anything else about her...her overarching determination to show the big shots at the Pentagon that 'a woman can pull the trigger.'
God help us....
James Kroeger
Hillary has promised her
Hillary has promised her donors military attacks in other countries and, it seems, plenty of them - and that's what she listens to. The digital rustle of data-dots representing increased, never-enough wealth/power-by-billionaire-proxy increases for the Clintons, even when past retirement age, having gained well over 100 million personally and with a multi-billion-dollar slush fund Foundation to cut their costs and provide bribes/pay-offs in the form of cushy jobs and whatever.
And how is the global hostile corporate take-over to be fully achieved if those countries and people not to be captured by privately made, unconstitutional (whatever any Supreme Court or other corrupt judges may claim) and traitorous 'trade agreements' can't be invaded or nuked into forever toxic wasteland using the military and other publicly owned resources of such 'legally' captured countries? Life on Earth won't last long under totalitarian and pathologically-destructive-for-maximized-profit corporate rule, perhaps a few decades even without nuclear war among multiple countries, so there's some hurry on this, so that the last oligarch to die can truly have it all.
Edit: also, Hillary was competing with the Republicans for donors - and got many of them. Billions have been invested in her as a result of her corruption making her the favoured Presidential choice of those most threatening the rest of us.
Recent memory lane stuff
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/02/hillary-clinton-backed-major-repu...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-bern...
So epic levels of cheating occurred throughout the nomination... No sane and informed person could actually vote for this!
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Yes...but
Zero experience is preferable than having an abundance of experience in creating global disasters of biblical proportions with no remorse for years -- which is what Hillary has.
The Necons are all lining-up to support Hillary Clinton: Paul Wolfowitz, Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, George Schultz, The Bush family, Henry Kissinger, Victoria Nuland, Bill Kristol, Madeline Allbright, etc.
That means the corrupt global Warfare Interests have identified their devil, and the American people would be very wise to stay far away from it.
Yes but we know what they are
Yes but we know what they are up to and can at least attemp to combat it, With Trump we don't know what he will attempt and much of his foreign policy is directed inside our borders, focused upon our neighbors and families. Deportations, violence against protesters, building walls, rounding up peoples, using 2nd amendment remedies with a iron fist.
At least I can gripe about what our country is doing now and with the Clintons, I doubt that will be the case with a Trump presidency, Bush/Cheaney on steroids on cracking down on dissent.
Let me encourage you to think about this....
Two aspects of this you really need to reflect on.
All of these crazy/mean 'inside our borders' ideas that Trump has advocated are utterly dependent upon him getting legislation passed over the opposition of not only the Democratic Party, but also the saner voices within the Republican party, and also the MSM, which is virtually certain to oppose them. Our combined efforts to combat them are highly likely to stop him.
But when it comes to Hillary making the decisions to send American troops into action, that is something she doesn't need to get through Congress or even fight for on any level. She knows that as Commander-in-Chief, she can act as a dictator and will take full advantage of those powers, knowing that once our troops are engaged with the enemy of her choosing, she will be able to use patriotic appeals to get the approval of Congress she wants, after the fact.
You've got it exactly backwards in your assessment of the risks we face, when choosing between Trump and Clinton. I've spent most of the past year ridiculing Trump and consider him to this day to be political scum, but I will vote for him if it looks at all close in my state just to avoid the greater evil, about which I have no doubts whatsoever.
James Kroeger
I Would NEVER
vote for Trump. However, even the worst policies he has advanced are nothing compared to the horror of nuclear war.
"You argue that you don't want to throw away your vote. That's right. Don't vote for freedom - you might not get it. Vote for slavery - you have a cinch on that." Eugene Debs
Well...
That is precisely the ONLY reason why I've even considered voting for the scumbag. There is a time when you have to weigh the downside risks and choose a path which optimizes your chances of avoiding the unthinkable.
I often like to point out to people who make gambling decisions based on what they perceive to be very favorable odds that a 99% chance of success is simply not good enough odds to risk everything on your wishful thinking.
If you absolutely cannot afford the consequences of losing, it is insane for you to make the bet. That's the problem with Hillary. Her history shows that she likes to gamble when the odds seem to be in her (her army's) favor.
There's nothing about Trump that I like---except that he doesn't view Putin as a threat to America---but I believe we can survive his narcissistic personality disorder. Clinton? Not so much...
James Kroeger
If everybody voted non
If everybody voted non-corporate Green for the chances of the survival of the concept of democracy and of life on the planet, I wonder what would happen? At least people wouldn't be voting against the survival of the concept of democracy and of life on the planet...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
This is why Hillary Clinton is the WORST-CASE choice
I am supporting Dr. Jill Stein, but given the choice between Hiklary Klinton and Donald Trump and the associated risks of Nuclear War, the madness of Military conflict with Russia, and endless Bloody Global War Atrocities --- between the two candidates clearly Hitlerty Clinton is the very, very worst case scenario here.
Watch:
[video:https://youtu.be/e4LKAt1t_8M width:640 height:480]
---
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tK1xrmXgUkQ width:640 height:480]
---
Depends on the kind of experience...
What our experienced people in Washington know how to do is deceive the public, get rich through corruption, let police and the Justice Department, FBI, and CIA commit crimes without punishment, fix things for the 1% and against everybody else, and wage wars and bring down elected governments around the world to change regimes for ones that favor the rich. This makes zero experience look more like a fresh start, even with a flawed candidate, and especially if the establishment isn't looking to cooperate with him. It's a gamble, but a Clinton presidency would be guaranteed horror.
Barbara Marquardt
I Found the Link -- We Must Love Each Other; Or We Must Die
“Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.” ~ Sun Tzu
The Ad
Please remember that the ad aired exactly once as a paid political advertisement and was pulled. It was rebroadcast repeatedly along with commentary as a result of the controversy it generated.
I Quit MoveOn
they are model veal pen. They couldn't wait and jumped at the first opportunity they had to dump Bernie and Support Hillary.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
MoveOn lost me about March when their leaders
suggested that Sanders step out of the race then. Yes, it was voted by MoveOn members to back Sanders; however, the leaders apparently never agreed with that. My guess is that they did not do everything they could to garner votes for Sanders.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.--Aristotle
If there is no struggle there is no progress.--Frederick Douglass
MoveOn was a Clinton org from the get-go
Its original name was "Censure And Move On", with specific reference to Bill Clinton's then-impending impeachment. Once a Clinton org, always a Clinton org.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
I left and came back
I left MoveOn when they endorsed the ACA without the public option. Came back when they voted to back Bernie in the primaries. Left again when they wanted to do GOTV for Hillary. Totally veal pen, but it's easy to get out of it!
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
She is AIPAC's darling.
She is the Koch brothers choice.
She dodged sniper fire, depending on the mean of the word truth.
She is a power hungry war hawk.
She will create more endless war.
I am not with her.(I might get infected with pneumonia).
Peace out, tmp.
After she met with the bipartisan foreign policy experts
She gave a speech about her goals in the Middle East and again spoke about creating a no fly zone over Syria.
Then she spoke about how the sanctions against Iran didn't go far enough because she said that they built 3 centrifuges and basically threatened them. We know that AIPAC and her buddy Haim Saben have donated a lot of money to her campaign. During her first 100 days she will have Bibi come to the WH and who knows what they will cook up.
That's one good thing I can say about Obama. He kept Bibi in check and wouldn't let him attack Iran.
Finally Hillary accused Putin of invading Crimea when it was the US that overthrew Ukraine's government and has been funding the same group of neo Nazis that invaded Russia during WWII.
Russia has had a base in Crimea for many decades and the US wanted it.
Another poster here said that the US was in the middle of getting contact bids do build up the base before Putin stepped in.
Here's an article about what Russia is worried about if Hillary becomes president.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/09/07/the-kremlin-really-believes-that-hil...
And this article below shows all of the republican neoconservatives that are backing Hillary, many of them were in the Bush administration and were the ones pushing for the Iraq war and many of them were the ones that wrote up PNAC and have been involved in foreign policy going back to the Reagan administration. I'm surprised that we haven't heard from Cheney yet .
Robert Kagan helped write PNAC, his wife Nuland was responsible for the Ukraine coup, and there are more of the Kagans involved in many pro war think tank. Robert is advising her during her campaign on foreign policy as have the rest of the Kagan family. Read more about them in the link. And rumors are that Nuland is going to be her secretary of state.
Plus in this article there Zionists who are in Israel's pockets.
Most of the wars in the Middle East are so that Israel becomes the only superpower in the Middle East.
However, I don't see Israel putting their troop's lives on the line like ours are or seeing Israel helping pay for the wars. The US has spent between $4-6 trillion dollars since the war of terror started and our government tells us that ther needs to be cuts to our social programs because there isn't money for them, nor is there money for us to have universal health care, but Israel's people sure have great health care.
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2016/09/03/1008921the-neocon-in-the-oval-...
I hope that people read both of these articles because these are the stakes if Hillary becomes president.
I don't know what Trump will do, I do know what Hillary has done and what she has said that she wants to do.
A leftist is someone with morally correct politics. A liberal is someone who wants to feel morally correct w/o ever putting themselves at odds with power or costing themselves opportunities or experiencing the uncomfortable emotions that truth causes.
Syria no-fly zone could mean war against Russia
Last time I checked, ISIS did not have an air force. So a Syria no fly zone risks war with Russia --- unless we can work out a deal with Putin and give up the goal of regime change in Syria. Which is probably not what Hillary has in mind.
"We've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty."
The thing is Clinton would just be a conduit for
a large group of people who might want a nuke war. If there is a nuke war it will be instigated, it won't just happen organically. So if it gets that far it won't matter if it's Trump or Clinton.
I think the main point is we have to stop it from getting that far, because it's on the way. The framework is being set.
Well, There Is Some Hope . . .
I did the calculation based on her past performance, and I figure there's a 0.001% chance that she'll actually be passed out at the time when she plans on pushing the button.
That's better than nothing!
Not concerned about Trump with the codes
Not at all. The scare is supposed to be that he'll go all Hulk on the codes the moment he gets mad at another country, but what about the Secretary of Defense, who also has to authorize nuclear launches alongside the president? It's 2 buttons spread far enough that one person can't push them both, not one button that can be pressed in a fit of rage or a moment of poor judgement. Are there many people who would eagerly nuke a country with Trump that the Senate would dare attach their names to by approving? I doubt it.
But are their people who would agree with Hillary that Russia and Iran need a little cleansing for the "safety" of Israel that the Senate wouldn't have a problem with approving? Hell, they may just bring back Kissinger for that.
Exactly. But that won't be in the ad.
Nor will the enhancement of the "two man rule". The launch codes don't launch a nuclear missile - they send authorization to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has the "gold phone" that is directly linked to the US Strategic Command Headquarters in Nebraska, which is where the actual launch is initiated.
To my mind, there is a far better chance that a hot-headed Trump is more likely to be stymied along that road to the actual finger on the button than Hillary will be.
Exactly
There are so many people willing to do anything for Hillary already in government that I find her to be far scarier than Trump. She already has support at multiple levels of government already in place, the political infrastructure was already built in her favor. Trump doesn't have that. He has no political infrastructure, he has minimal support at any level of government (probably mostly at the local level). There's no comparison between the two when you take into consideration the potential effectiveness. It's like comparing the mafia to a tree house gang.
Hillary's and Trump's Corporate America
From the Light House.
And the survey here says
crazy as the hairball might be, her heinous wins the MAD-BOMBER award hands down.
Move On please donate to us here at Caucus99 to help bring the
duopoly down.
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
This is how humanity ends next year.
Tuesday Nov. 8, 2016 Hillary Clinton elected
March, 2017 Hillary Clinton orders direct bombing attacks against the Assad regime. Russian and US begin to engage each other in an air war. NATO consider this Russian aggression against another NATO country and join in against Russia.
Clinton breaks off any and all diplomatic missions and contact with Russia.
Turkey takes over all of Northern Syria to stop a Kurdish state and provide aid to Al Queda affiliated jihadist armies. Aleppo falls to Al Queda. Both ISIS and Al Queda move south toward Damascus.
The Russians realize they are out gunned against all of NATO and the US--so they are forced to leave Syria. Same with Iran.
They take the Assad family with them knowing what happened to Qaddafi. ISIS reaches Damascus. Saudi Arabia recognizes IS as government of Syria.
Putin is accused of causing massive new wave of refugees.
On the news of Assad fleeing the country, Clinton is heralded as the great liberator of Syria. Shia refugees pour into Lebanon. Genocide begins against Syrian Shia and Christians.
Ukrainian Nazis see the retreat of the Russians as a time to strike against them with the goal of bringing in NATO, the US, and massive aid to the country under a Clinton regime and newly minted Secretary of State Nuland.
The Clinton regime believes she can remove Putin in the same way she removed Qaddafi and Assad from Syria.
Through false flags and direct missile attacks against Russia towns from the Ukraine military and Nazis, the Russians bring the full force of their military into the fray. Western media and EU governments say that Russian aggression must be met and stopped.
The war is not going well for NATO as many countries are unwillingly to have their young men and women dying on the Eastern front to protect the Ukraine.
Clinton believes in "nuclear primacy" along with her neocons in the Pentagon and State. She launches a "limited tactical nuclear bomb" in borderland regions of the Ukraine and Russia. Russian forces are annihilated. She believes the Russians will overthrow Putin and accede to all Western demands.
It is not clear if Putin is in power. Whoever is in charge of Russia launches retaliatory nuclear strike against the US and NATO. The first sign of a nuclear attack on American soil is that every electronic device goes dead. Then the horror.
The US in turn fires nukes from secure bunkers and submarines. Some of the world's rich elites have run to New Zealand during the Ukrainian war where they have been buying large tracts of land believing they can survive anything. Clinton billionaires and her Hollywood donors are even planning a post-war America--Cloney is chosen by acclaim as the first new president.
But eventually, the nuclear winter reaches them and kills them if they even survived attacks on them by locals.
This is almost too depressing
This is almost too depressing, but I must say that some scenario very much like this sounds not only plausible but just as inevitable as Hillary the Cheater-in-Chief was claimed to be even before the nomination began...
Edit: fingers were depressed, too... but on the plus side, I see that I can retain my title as The Typo Queen for another year, assuming that I survive that long.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
None of this is really made up but policy history
The crazy thing about this write up was that it came from actions and policies from Hillary and the chickenhawk neocons. Yes, there are neocons who have talked about nuclear primacy and using mini-nukes. Yes Hillary wants to directly bomb Assad regime. When I read alternative voices here and outside the country, there is a growing fear of nuclear war due to Hillary's war mongering and poor judgement.